I don't think science lays claim to pure objectivism, it just strives for it. But then again, I wouldn't label it a culture, so much as sort of critical thinking. Of course my comment was geared more towards the apparent inability people have to absorb information they disagree with or are unfamiliar with. Or maybe people just don't read. I mean, how hard is it to understand that global warming is a natural process and we're making it worse? It's clear, simple, makes perfect logical sense, any toddler could comprehend it. I thought my pimple analogy was very clever, too =(

Also, the sun has an atmosphere, dontchaknow.

a particle is a thing in itself. a wave is a disturbance in something else. waves themselves are probably not disturbed.

Yeah, I just realized I may have misused the term. I always assumed cultural relativism included language interpretation. That is, if a culture or person lacks experience with cold weather, you can't expect them to understand the word "snow" the same way you understand it. That's what I meant; that a person who has never gone through the process of experimental design can't be expected to understand science the way (hopefully) most of us do.

If the wikipedia entry is to be trusted, though, cultural relativism is about interpreting actions in the context of culture. I would assert that the use of language is an action and that every person is a micro-culture, distinct from his neighbors insofar as his experience is different. I guess that's not a leap everyone would automatically make, though.

"Oh, you have promise. But wait until you have more years fall upon you, and you will see what a shell your heart will become."
-Kreia

Snow, freezing rain, sleet, hail, slush... You don't need to go beyond American English to get a dozen words for sub-32-degree precipitation. But I think we're on the same page; Inuit has more words and makes finer distinctions because they have such extensive experience with snow.

As for what it takes to constitute culture, it's not a clear-cut line. We could form a fuzzy idea what the difference is between "a culture", "a subculture", and "a perspective". My point, though, is that this difference isn't relevant. The method of cultural relativism can be applied to understand a person's actions in the context of who he is, and his culture is just one part of this context.

"Oh, you have promise. But wait until you have more years fall upon you, and you will see what a shell your heart will become."
-Kreia

Cultural relativism is saying that even though I find FGM pretty abhorrent, I can acknowledge that I feel that way because of my cultural upbringing and conditioning. If I had been brought up to think of it as normal, thats what I'd think. Which is what people that practice FGM think.

This famous math dude, Dyson, insists that a surplus of carbon dioxide will most likely result in an increase in plant vegetation. The NY Times had this whole article about how he doesn't believe global warming will ultimately prove harmful, which is decidedly different from not believe in global warming, so I didn't wind up posting the article in the thread.

a particle is a thing in itself. a wave is a disturbance in something else. waves themselves are probably not disturbed.

lol, I WISH MORE PEOPLE WOULD SHOW THEIR UNEDUCATED ON THE TOPIC ASS AS YOU!!!!! It would only make this easier to fix, seeing how all the scientific data says this is wrong. Fear not in less then 2 years this will all be resolved. In my direction BTW. I LOL AT YOU AND THE OTHER IDIOTS THAT BELIEVE AL GORE!!!!

Anyone who argues global warming is fiction can't read. Global temperatures have gone up. This is not disputable. On top of that, global temperatures do fluctuate naturally. The disagreement stems from distinguishing whether this current temperature rise is man made or natural, or more likely what percentage of each. Science has corrupted the debate to the point I have a wait and see attitude. I'll give it 5-10 more years. The most well known models have been out for some time, but aren't doing a very good job so far. I'll still give em 5-10 more years though, because worst case scenario we make the world a little better through conservation, renewable energy, recycling and what not.

reddwhite wrote:I just gave up on this post since there is no reason to argue nonsense. If you are a beleiver nothing anyone says will change your mind, nor will any amount of data from any scientific source.

Guess I was right after all, it is a religion then.

I love this almost as much as creationists accusing evolution proponents of being "blinded" by their "religion" and "ignoring science."

Temperature trends have been shown to be getting warmer, CO2 emissions have been shown to be increasing, arctic ice has been shown to be melting. You've done nothing to even make a case for the contrary.

Here's a hint for self-improvement: don't look for scientific information on sites called globalwarminghoax.com. Even scientists who are legitimate skeptics of global warming (as rare as they are) would not call it a hoax because science is apolitical and impersonal. A hoax implies a deliberate attempt to deceive, so it would require a pretty fucking huge conspiracy of millions of scientists who are aware of the lies and flaws but don't speak up. If you think that's the case, I have a tinfoil hat that prevents alien brainscans to sell you.

The people behind warming or evolution denial hate science because of the conclusions it finds in stuff that has political, social and economic implications. Not wanting to re-evaluate their outlook on life and the world, they desperately do anything to tar science. They can't call evil and condemn outright because even the people who would be open to their bullshit would know that that's outright insane, so they muddy the issue by cherry picking evidence and passing pseudo-science as science in really good, simple soundbites. Of course science is not so simple so debunking their bullshit cannot be done easily if the audience has no basis to understand it, so the anti-science crusaders sound like they have a point. They don't. By ignorance or sheer idiocy, you are adding your voice to their choir.

I will not argue with conservation in any way shape or form. It is right, there is no reason to use 3 gallons of gas if 1/2 a gallon can do the same work.

Manmande or agw on the other hand is the biggest hoax in history. Call it a conspiracy if you want, but the facts are in and the earth has not warmed in the last 10 years. It has cooled. Sorry for any true believers but the temps follow the solar cycles. all the manmade global warming climate models say the sun has little impact on climate. Real science says it is the biggest influence on climate.

I posted a link showing the suns effects on earth. BTW kaz lol@u. For bringing up global warming hoax.com like that is some kind of evidence of anything. I gave a link to the exact same page from the university of colorado that was on that site showing the science wasnt judged in any way. Hey i know next time show me a quote from al gore as proof of your failed beliefs, that will make as much sense.

What you're saying is there's a conspiracy of millions of scientists hiding the true for some social, political or economical motive with not a single one of them blowing the whistle. With scientific inquiry as open and free flowing as it is, this is the only logical conclusion of calling manmade global warming a hoax. Otherwise it would not be considered a legitimate scientific theory with an abundance of solid evidence backing it up. If you can't get what I'm getting to, let me spell it out: This is as insane as any 9/11 conspiracy theory.

Also by claiming manmade global warming is a hoax, you're denying that either (or both) A) humans release huge amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere or B) CO2 is not a greenhouse gas. Both are demonstrably true.

The earth has notcooled. In fact, it's such retarded claim that I can't even find it in any place that isn't filled with complete quackery. It's not even in lists of common global warming denials.

I already explained how you've misinterpreted the data from the university of colorado. If you actually bothered to read any part of the site, you'd see they come to the conclusion that arctic ice levels are dwindling, sea levels are rising and the earth IS warming.

Again, it's not a belief. It's an understanding of the scientific process and the acceptance of the conclusions it comes to. In YOUR case it is a belief, because that's the only way you're able to process information. You are not a rational being.

What about Al Gore? He's a spokesman for people who want to do something about the planet warming, which is good, but I don't particularly care about him.

And this is why so many "liberals" get pissed off with "conservatives." Because we have shown you the data, deconstructed the thinking, and made the rational argument, yet still you persist in ignoring it and restating your opinion in different fashions with minimal or misleading evidence. The only solution is to forge onward until finally conceptualization occurs somewhere in your frontal cortex. Props to Kaz for always being that guy.

a particle is a thing in itself. a wave is a disturbance in something else. waves themselves are probably not disturbed.

Im a conservative and I "believe" in global warming, its impacts however i am a little more skeptical about. Please stop lumping conservatives into a massive stereotype, not all of us are Rush Limbaughs.

Jester wrote:Im a conservative and I "believe" in global warming, its impacts however i am a little more skeptical about. Please stop lumping conservatives into a massive stereotype, not all of us are Rush Limbaughs.

I don't place quotes around things meaninglessly, because I am aware of this, seeing as how I also already raised this point.

a particle is a thing in itself. a wave is a disturbance in something else. waves themselves are probably not disturbed.

Dr.Mellifluous wrote:And this is why so many "liberals" get pissed off with "conservatives." Because we have shown you the data, deconstructed the thinking, and made the rational argument, yet still you persist in ignoring it and restating your opinion in different fashions with minimal or misleading evidence. The only solution is to forge onward until finally conceptualization occurs somewhere in your frontal cortex. Props to Kaz for always being that guy.

This.

That said, it makes me sad that an entire political party gets labeled this way. A lot of people get covered in the dusty debris of the far-right's fear-mongering hate machine, and most of them don't deserve it.

Hero, As I understand it, cultural relativism is not a moral theory; it cannot make any claim as to what actually constitutes right and wrong. It is true that you could describe a scenario in which you would declare that FGM is moral. Same for a scenario in which you would declare FGM to be immoral. And if you would understand a practitioner of FGM, you would do well to consider her moral background ("she's a barbarian" is at best an under-explanation, and at worst a pernicious lie). That's the cultural relativist thinking methodology.

Note, though, that these are all claims about how the world IS; they say nothing about how things OUGHT to be. Even as you understand why people do the things they do, it's coherent for you to assert that FGM is objectively morally wrong.

You didn't say so outright, but your explanation sounded like you would dismiss the moral debate on relativist grounds, which would be a moral relativist rather than cultural relativist act. You can, of course, coherently be a cultural relativist and a moral relativist. But you can also coherently be a cultural relativist and a noncognitivist, or a cultural relativist and a moral realist. Of course, I may have read too much into what you said.

"Oh, you have promise. But wait until you have more years fall upon you, and you will see what a shell your heart will become."
-Kreia